Dan Connolly wrote:
> I believe so too, but the compatibility issues look hairy.
>
> > 2. It isn't clear whether containers (particularly sequences) can
> > have 'gaps' or not.
>
> We decided (1) the spec is indeed unlear here, to
> the point of erroneous; (2) they can have gaps;
> hmm... at least: I thought we did;
> I don't see it in the issues list... and I've reviewed
> the meeting records back to May.
>
> Where the heck did it go?
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#attention-developers
On 8th June 2001 the WG decided that an RDF model may contain partial
descriptions of
a container. Thus an RDF model is not contrained to have the containermembership
properties contiguous starting from rdf:_1. Changes to the Model and Syntax
specification have been proposed.
with a reference to:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0039.html
>Chairs? help? Am I hallucinating?
I'm sorry, I do not have that information :)
Brian